Women unfortunately get all sorts of obstacles put in the way of their military service, some official but many are unofficial efforts to target them and try to force them out. While obviously psychological toughness is a vital trait, when women are subjected to this alongside the existing designed challenges of military training, then it's not going to be a fair assessment or allow them to get the best results out of their training. There were some allegations in the Australian military recently about some pretty cretinous treatment of women, I absolutely adore this response from our Chief of Army and think that it's relevant enough to post.

While I don't think that a country should engage in conscription, then if they do then it should certainly be inclusive. Perhaps those who do not meet the requirements of the army, regardless of sex and gender, could be placed in some other form of service.

For the record, it was no part of my point to try to belittle the courage and fighting spirit of Kurdish women, or of Kurdish guerrillas in general. I was after something completely different and I figure it was being made fairly clear what it was.

Thus why I said "all things being equal" that was my attempt to show that I was not saying it does not happen, and there was the crucifixion I anticipated.

No attempt at personal judgement here. I changed my wording slightly with an edit because I realized my original wording sounded far too rude and arrogant, but even with my original clumsy phrasing (saying "that's simply not true" if you didn't see it) I certainly didn't and don't intend to crucify you. Just disagreeing with your assessment.

I don't understand what you mean by "all things being equal" though. Are you intending to convey that it's a rare occurrence? Because if you have a look at the numbers presented within the sources I showed, then unfortunately even that is not supported by the evidence.

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

Now the stats or sketchy at best, toss in war which further clouds the issue because of the inherent ugly nature of the matter and it gets even more sketchy. But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

As for conscription? Sure if you are going to have conscription and have women in combat then the women should sign right up along with the men. But call me unenlightened, but with women in combat even assuming they would get raped as often as men, then there is still the unwanted pregnancy issue....it just opens a can of worms that I am not comfortable with. And in none of this am I asserting that equally qualified women are not as capable as men.

And I think the point Louise was trying to make which I somewhat agree with is that it is different when one has an established country and when one is trying to carve out there own place. I know this can be perceived as arrogant, but they are situations that are faced with differing realities.

Maybe. Its just that the general tone of her post didnt sit wel vith me on that level. Since like I said, I emphatize with the Kurds, their situation being not that dissimilar to the one my country faced 25 years ago.

But that vasnt the main point I vas aiming for. The main point was to ilustrate the kind of mindset people tend to develop in the middle of a war, on the frontlines. And wartime mindset has nothing to do vith where you live, established country or not. If it came down to the basics, and stark survival, instinct wuld take over. And also to provide a real-life example of how a perceived disadvantage women face in wartime (rape when captured, in this case) can be used to their advantage and provide motivation to be more efective in combat.

And in none of this am I asserting that equally qualified women are not as capable as men.

Don't worry, I never thought that you were.

Quote

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

It's always difficult to judge the statistics, as you mentioned elsewhere in your post, of such a contentious subject with so many instances going unreported. One issue though is that the statistics in the sources you link are for non-wartime rape, which from what I've seen are quite a different gender-ratio from the use of rape as torture against prisoners of war. However I would still be inclined to agree with you that women experience a statistically higher rate of experiencing this form of sexual violence and that it is supported by the evidence to the best standards we have currently.

Quote

But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

I get where you're coming from. I actually think that potentially I could agree with you on that point, strictly as it relates to conscription. Where someone potentially has more threat against them then forcing them into that situation is very different morally from allowing them to knowingly and voluntarily accept that risk. (Edit: To be clear I say potentially because although I can see your argument, it sits uneasily with some of my other feelings on the subject, so I'll have to think about it some more to try to come to any real conclusion. It's certainly a tricky issue.)

Quote

But call me unenlightened

No plans of doing that.

Quote

but with women in combat even assuming they would get raped as often as men, then there is still the unwanted pregnancy issue

That is also a factor, to be sure. Although I would argue that the social treatment of men who experience sexual assault, the lack of resources for their support and the potential resulting damage to their gender identity with present ideas of gender roles also create similarly unparalleled issues for male victims that females would not experience. However that's a comparing apples with oranges case that really can have little data to support discussion.

And I think the point Louise was trying to make which I somewhat agree with is that it is different when one has an established country and when one is trying to carve out there own place. I know this can be perceived as arrogant, but they are situations that are faced with differing realities.

*nods* Exactly. And the time frame is different too. Few established countries see themselves fighting a war continuously for thirty years or more, especially not near their own borders or inside of them, but national independence movements and liberation fronts of nations that are trying to carve out their own state - they have often been at war on that kind of a timescale (PLO/al-Fatah, the Tamil Tigers, Kurdish PKK and so on). Entering into a steady peace settlement is simply not an option, even if the movement is getting hammered. So people in those nations and minorities grow up with the war going on.

Also, when I said the Kurds are not winning I was thinking mostly of the situation in Turkey, where they are not on the verge of setting up their own state - and the major Kurd parties want a Kurdistan that straddles areas that are now situated in Turkey, Iraq and Syria. And in Iraq, honestly, their near establishing a state of their own has become possible more because the central power in the country has almost collapsed over the last two years.

The point I am trying to make is that I think, and I think the statistics agree with me, that more women suffer rape than men. I am not saying a large number of men do not suffer sexual violence, but I am saying it is more prevalent that women are the victims.

Now the stats or sketchy at best, toss in war which further clouds the issue because of the inherent ugly nature of the matter and it gets even more sketchy. But I kind of feel like we should do all we can to control such things even if elimination is not going to happen.

Slightly off-topic:

I seem to recall questions along these lines were raised in a previous thread, although for the life of me I can't remember which one.

It deals with civilians as opposed to soldiers but one of the sad facts of modern war is that, soldier or not, pretty much everyone is viewed as at least a possible combatant. And it also deals with the way that NGO's and the like frequently ignore male victims of rape during war... both with regards to aid and with regards to reporting. The UN has made a number of resolutions and the like about sexual violence... but almost all are directed entirely at women. Because it's the most hidden of hidden crimes getting stats on it is near impossible

Caehlim -> we are not really far apart. It is a very touchy subject I freely admit, but one of my pet peeves is our modern tendency to ignore uncomfortable truths just because they are uncomfortable.

Agreed. I think that those are often the things that most need to be discussed and brought into the light of day. Too many issues fester unaddressed because they're too awkward or impolite for people to discuss them reasonably.

And it also deals with the way that NGO's and the like frequently ignore male victims of rape during war... both with regards to aid and with regards to reporting. The UN has made a number of resolutions and the like about sexual violence... but almost all are directed entirely at women. Because it's the most hidden of hidden crimes getting stats on it is near impossible

I agree that this is another issue that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately it's so often a difficult thing to discuss, and particularly with a lot of strong opinions on gender-bias at the moment it can be viewed as politically incorrect to say that more needs to be done for male victims, which is a pity in cases like this. It's why I'm glad that modern feminism includes the intersectionality theory allowing a place for this sort of discussion.

One of the problems with the UN, Geneva Convention, and other such well meaning but ultimately meaningless things is that they are toothless tigers. In a war torn nation enforcing such laws is pretty much impossible and short of things like the Nirenberg trials virtually none of the perpetrators are ever forced to face justice. In fact, in some cases where one has a combatant that follows the rules so to speak fighting one who does not, the former is at a distinct disadvantage.

War is ugly, but I suspect it will be with us until we deal with the tin horn dictators and terrorists of the world. I am not so naive as to think there is any way to deal with them other than a high speed round between their eyes. A harsh fact, fact all the same.

One of the problems with the UN, Geneva Convention, and other such well meaning but ultimately meaningless things is that they are toothless tigers.

I don't think these laws were ever really intended to deal with the modern realities of guerrilla warfare. These were treaties, intended to be kept between countries fielding large forces of conventional troops and holding to these standards (when you thought anyone was watching) would help you too since you wanted the enemy to hold to them as well.

Some new approach needs to be designed for the modern age. Unfortunately I don't have any suggestions for how this could be done.

Since this topic got me to thinking some other things came to mind. As Marchoisas pointed out, females should be able to pass physical standards for whatever job they are assigned to preform. But from personal experience things get more complicated...

I was an accomplished wrestler during my competitive career and coached many years after retiring from competition. In one state greco roman championship back in the day a group of young women who were judo practitioners showed up. All well and good, but there is a difference in the genders even if greco and judo are kissing cousins in disciplines. One of said women ran into well me, in the quarter finals. We were both the same weight, I know for fact at the time I was sporting a whole 3% body fat, the rest of me was muscle. I also know as a biological fact that it is a very rare woman who has a body fat content of below 10%. I think you can see who had a decided power advantage considering the weights were equal. We were also by and large technical equals so one can see how it all turned out.

Fast forward, I am coaching youth wrestling including both my son and my daughter. I coached other young women as well, women's wrestling is an Olympic sport and I would never tell my daughter she cannot do anything my son can do. But my experience there with several references by and large went along these lines. Pre adolescence, the young women tended to be better performers. They matured faster and had more coordination at an earlier age. That all ended when adolescence set in and the young men began packing on the muscle males are known for. The young women at that point just did not have the physical tools at hand, it was simple biology. Thus why the genders are separated in most sports.

I feel like these are factors that come into play in military service as well. If a nation is sending human beings into combat they need every advantage they can get. And once again I am not saying women are not qualified, many, many are. But we have got to keep these factors in mind in my opinion otherwise we are setting them up for failure. And this is not a simple competition, this is a life and death matter.

First, while it's true that there's a 'mandatory' military service of one year for people ( formerly only men ) after finishing secondary school, this military service has very little to do with actual war or combat. They're trained, then sent home, assuming Norway isn't ... invaded. When Norway sends people overseas, it's on an entirely voluntary and highly selective basis. The number of actual Norwegian soldiers in Afghanistan, for instance, numbers in the low hundreds. And the selection process for these individuals is incredibly rigorous.

Also, military service in Norway has always been open to women - just not mandatory.

With that said, every year, around 60 000 Norwegians enter into the age range that may be required to do a year of military service. For various reasons, not all of these are actually called to take the physical exams required. Because this was previously only mandatory for men, the number of men taking their physicals has obviously been higher. In 2012, nearly 7000 women and 17000 men took these tests, and 5500 women and 14500 men were found to be fit for service. ( The requirements for this are not very high; I was found fit for service all those years ago, and there is no conceivable way I could be in the military ).

Of these roughly 20 000, only about 9000 actually do military service each year. It used to be higher, but these days they actually have more volunteers than they can take. That is, if you show up to get your physical exam and you tell them you don't want in, they won't take you.

What this means, though, is the military service that is now 'mandatory' for women, can afford to be highly selective about who gets taken. Statistical differences in biology are irrelevant when you have such a large pool, and the selection is so rigorous.

I hope that clears up some things.

On a personal note, my only problem with the change to the laws in Norway is that they didn't make it voluntary for both men and women instead.

BTW. I asked some of my Polish web acquaintances about this issue. One woman replied that there are obvious biological differences between men and women - and that, because of them, women can only play support roles in the military...

Admittedly, the woman who said this is in her 60s, still... I hear this kind of opinions and I really don't know what to think of them...

Here is an interesting article, with numbers from the US Army. Here's an interesting paragraph ( emphasis added ):

Quote

Males are more aggressive, which can be beneficial in combat. But that trait also leads to more accidents and injuries, up to and including eye injuries (men in the military have twice as many as women) and suicide (men account for about 95% of military suicides). Women are more nurturing, and their most basic form of nurturing – motherhood – accounts for 58% of hospitalizations among active-duty female troops. But they also crash and kill themselves much less often. Yet even once pregnancy and delivery hospitalizations are removed from the equation, female troops are hospitalized at a rate 30% higher than their male counterparts.

Saying that men are, on average, more physically fit than women, is at best an oversimplification. It also ignores the fact that men statistically being physically stronger does not mean that all men are physically stronger than all women. The same applies in the army.

I'd like to know what the 'biological differences' crowd would say if it were somehow demonstrated that an all-female military would actually be more effective. Because I think I can anticipate some of the reactions, and I doubt it'd lead to men being removed from the frontlines.